IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area. _________________ Lakers need to build a freaking team !
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:31 pm Post subject:
deal wrote:
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's? _________________ Resident Car Nut.
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's?
Nope. Which is why I’m leaning towards Garland if the Lakers are retaining the pick.
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Did you watch the scrimmages and the shot types?
I feel like I'm being tested on my knowledge of Shamet when I said on a podcast in April he should be consideration for the late 1st.
No one's testing you. It's just bizarre to dismiss an entire college career and the data behind it because of a couple pickup games. Then to suddenly ascribe all his success to a teammate he was with for a brief period when he had already proven himself adept at that skill prior to knowing said teammate. Kevin Huerter also had a clunker in the NBA scrimmage (3-9 FG, 2-7 3PT), but the proof of what he could do was always on tape. Just like with Shamet.
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's?
Why wouldn't most prospects seek shooting coaches outside the organization?
I always thought this was the norm rather than the exception.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:42 pm Post subject:
Hero Ball wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Hero Ball wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wa_Pf5i6lU
At least Culver I can understand.
Understand what, his 30% 3pt shooting?
At least my guy had 33%
Culver shot 38% of those in spot ups during his frosh year. The difference here is Culver was the lead initiator,not a 3rd option. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 06 Oct 2018 Posts: 5181 Location: Sin City
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:47 pm Post subject:
Yeah I think Garland has to be the pick. His shooting and ball handling is promising. Wouldn't be surprised if Reddish ends up being a star somewhere but we can't afford to risk adding another 6'9" guy that can't shoot
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:47 pm Post subject:
PlantedTanks wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
deal wrote:
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's?
Why wouldn't most prospects seek shooting coaches outside the organization?
I always thought this was the norm rather than the exception.
I don't know man. Tbh, the most recent group of draft picks have exhibited terrible mechanics on jumpshots and we drafted one of them _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:49 pm Post subject:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Did you watch the scrimmages and the shot types?
I feel like I'm being tested on my knowledge of Shamet when I said on a podcast in April he should be consideration for the late 1st.
No one's testing you. It's just bizarre to dismiss an entire college career and the data behind it because of a couple pickup games. Then to suddenly ascribe all his success to a teammate he was with for a brief period when he had already proven himself adept at that skill prior to knowing said teammate. Kevin Huerter also had a clunker in the NBA scrimmage (3-9 FG, 2-7 3PT), but the proof of what he could do was always on tape. Just like with Shamet.
That's why I provided proof with the monthly splits, that so clearly showed his struggle early on.
Shamet himself credited Redick multiple times. Shrug.
Huerter, otoh, didn't have the same issues in game. You're pointing out box scores, not how Shamet couldn't get his shot off under NBA contests. Huerter got his normal looks. Box scores don't show that. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
The draft is just about talent acquisition. The only way to be successful at that is doing the best work just trying to find long term successful NBA players, regardless of skill. Once that goal is reached, it's keep or trade for assets.
Almost the entire youthcore was based on BPAs. We built a team on it. I think Garland is more likely to struggle early. I also think as a Laker, he'll be relegated to spot up shooting until the rest of the skills come along. Lower floor than Culver? Absolutely. It's also the best possible case for him to be successful considering he's playable by his best NBA skill, shooting. LAL doesn't need PnR and passing out of him for a couple years. We have 2 guys that do that.
I think Culver is more likely to be successful out of the gate. I really like him too. I have questions about his athleticism at wing, and he's elite SG size, not a SF, which makes it a bit more questionable next level. Would you play Wade at 3? That's Really close to Culver's size. But at least he added strength, plays high end defense, and barely has an average jumper despite still needing to make adjustments. Some adjustments take 1 summer like Josh Hart. Others take years. I don't think Garland needs to make that adjustment. His shot is already 1 motion, quick, and highly accurate in dynamic situations since HS.
Thank you.
Jack's Room wrote:
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Playing for a LeBron-lead win-now team as a rookie is also a lot of pressure. We've seen it affect guys like Rodney Hood and George Hill in past years, and they're now playing more freely on different teams. I thought Svi was just beginning to come out of his shell when we traded him. Hope he finds success in Detroit... and perhaps, even returns here at some point in the future if he becomes any good.
Obligatory YouTube clip... does anyone remembers the time when Svi outscored Klay?
BigGameHames wrote:
Reddish is the furthest from being ready to contribute of the guys in that range and I think Lebrons timeline is a big factor. Garland for similar reasons, small guards take time to adjust and he may be tough to get on the floor in big games his rookie season because of defense. I think they want an immediate contributor which would be Hunter, Culver, or White. With that said, if Garland kills his workout I can see them taking a risk on him at the expense of LeBron timeline but he’d need to really show out.
This. I'd be down with them taking Garland too, just not seeing it as very likely right now.
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Did you watch the scrimmages and the shot types?
I feel like I'm being tested on my knowledge of Shamet when I said on a podcast in April he should be consideration for the late 1st.
No one's testing you. It's just bizarre to dismiss an entire college career and the data behind it because of a couple pickup games. Then to suddenly ascribe all his success to a teammate he was with for a brief period when he had already proven himself adept at that skill prior to knowing said teammate. Kevin Huerter also had a clunker in the NBA scrimmage (3-9 FG, 2-7 3PT), but the proof of what he could do was always on tape. Just like with Shamet.
That's why I provided proof with the monthly splits, that so clearly showed his struggle early on.
Shamet himself credited Redick multiple times. Shrug.
Huerter, otoh, didn't have the same issues in game. You're pointing out box scores, not how Shamet couldn't get his shot off under NBA contests. Huerter got his normal looks. Box scores don't show that.
Those monthly splits are pretty common for incoming rookies adjusting to the NBA. Hield went through the same type of growing pains.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:57 pm Post subject:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Did you watch the scrimmages and the shot types?
I feel like I'm being tested on my knowledge of Shamet when I said on a podcast in April he should be consideration for the late 1st.
No one's testing you. It's just bizarre to dismiss an entire college career and the data behind it because of a couple pickup games. Then to suddenly ascribe all his success to a teammate he was with for a brief period when he had already proven himself adept at that skill prior to knowing said teammate. Kevin Huerter also had a clunker in the NBA scrimmage (3-9 FG, 2-7 3PT), but the proof of what he could do was always on tape. Just like with Shamet.
That's why I provided proof with the monthly splits, that so clearly showed his struggle early on.
Shamet himself credited Redick multiple times. Shrug.
Huerter, otoh, didn't have the same issues in game. You're pointing out box scores, not how Shamet couldn't get his shot off under NBA contests. Huerter got his normal looks. Box scores don't show that.
Those monthly splits are pretty common for incoming rookies adjusting to the NBA. Hield went through the same type of growing pains.
1 month at the beginning really. Hit a wall. Recovered. That's not typical.
Shamet was all over. He basically had 2, 3 month stints of going bottom and gradually getting better. Hield just flat out recovered. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's?
Unfortunately, no. I've brought up the need for the FO to hire a dedicated shooting coach in other threads. The Spurs have one, Chip Engelland. ATL had one when Budbudenholzer was their coach and took Ben Sullivan from the Spurs (apparently learned from Engelland). Sullivan has since moved to the Bucks along with Bud. So why can't we have one? It's not like we don't have the PG with the worst shot mechanics in the league... and we're supposed to be viewing our players as assets, so cost shouldn't be a question.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 3:02 pm Post subject:
LAL1947 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
deal wrote:
IF we were to keep the pick, which I doubt, we could walk away
with s pretty good player. Thing is he needs to already be a good
player not someone the Lakers need to develop; we have no recent
real track record in that area.
Do people really trust the Lakers staff to fix Reddish's shooting? Or even Culver's?
Unfortunately, no. I've brought up the need for the FO to hire a dedicated shooting coach in other threads. The Spurs have one, Chip Engelland. ATL had one when Budbudenholzer was their coach and took Ben Sullivan from the Spurs (apparently learned from Engelland). Sullivan has since moved to the Bucks along with Bud. So why can't we have one? It's not like we don't have the PG with the worst shot mechanics in the league... and we're supposed to be viewing our players as assets, so cost shouldn't be a question.
Agreed.
My opinion of Reddish would change drastically with that thing of shooting coach staff. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum